Ok guys, this was definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen. Rob Schneider deserved this 2005 RAZZIE for this. I think of him as one of the most annoying actors in Hollywood history. Oh well, he didn't win a second RAZZIE for Benchwarmers (along with Little Man). That award deservingly went to the Wayans brothers for Little Man.

I really don't understand you guys. OK, I could understand that DB:EG wasn't as good as the 1st one, and had differend kind of humor, but the worst movie?? It's comedy, for cryin' out loud.. imo it's not about effects and all those stuff as long as you laugh even just a little. But what really got me was nomination of Benchwarmers -.- seriously the men who nominated it have something personal against Rob, or are just weird. I loved this movie, and all my friends who saw it like it too. And also I heard he was nominated for his role in Big Daddy (Nazzo was my fav char since the 1st time I've seen it). Gee, there's really something wrong.. I wonder how do you chose those nominees?

And one last thing about Rob Schneider (yep, I like him, it's true). I could never ever pick on some1 who is just trying to make other people laugh. If you don't like comedies, or if you're some kind of pesimistic moron, why do you watch those movies? I doubt you've ever amended so many sour moods, or lightened up so many faces, as he does in one single year.

Oh, and if you have your own head ppl, you'd rate movies by yourself, not just read smth and and say you have the same opinion all the time.. there're not many unprejudiced people nowadays (seriously don't tell me you've never seen a movie with bad review that you like in the end)...

You can enjoy him if you do; we don't infringe, and we respect others' opinions. The only problem is, as I see it, that Schneider for whatever reason seems bent on antagonizing audiences, that he seems to see them as simply sheep to exploit for his gain, and everyone who says otherwise is a fool in his own right (case in point: his rambling and rather antagonistic exchange with Ebert following this one where he clearly had no respect for Roger's opinion, or any other critic's--while this may be OK in some respects to stand up for one's feelings, I think he went about it the wrong way). Why thus he seems to feel the need to anger the audience rather than entertain them mystifies me, and if he's not careful it'll come back on him in a bad way, if it hasn't already. But at least we'll always have Home Alone 2, where he put in a reasonable effort (even if it was largely due to Mac getting the better of him all through the picture).

The thing is the 1st was better'cuz it had "heart".It focused more in the romance than in the gross humour.This time,is the other way around.

I admit I laugh a few times,but it doesn't make it good,nor even O.K..

You want a proof that Rob deserves the Razzie?Remember the scene with the chick with the penis-nose?He said "I'll go talk with the penist.I mean the pianist!".Between those sentences,there was a pause,and if he had said it imediately,it would've been funny.Did he expect us to laugh out lout,and wanted to wait for us to finish so he could keep talkin'?

I saw this movie with my dad on DVD,and he said he didn't like Rob anymore when we saw he making of,and he was ev'rywhere bossin'aroun'people,even though he wasn't the director nor a producer.

Yes! Yes! Yes! And that is what's wrong with sequels. The first movie might have had "heart", but the sequel is just Hollywood riding the gravy train. And in most cases, the train derails because no one competent is conducting it.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum